News

On 24 November 2023 in Tallinn, Estonia, more than 100 parliamentarians, experts and government representatives of the Baltic States, as well as the countries from the Baltic Sea, Nordic, Benelux and GUAM regions, met for the annual 42 nd Session of the Baltic Assembly and the 29 th Baltic Council. Current affairs and cooperation in the economy and civil defence were discussed during the events. During the session in the parliament of Estonia, experts from the Baltic States were informed about the economic impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and how the Baltic States are joining forces towards a region more resilient to financial and energy market pressures. The need for an effective and coherent regional civil defence through close consultations and coordination was also assessed. Alongside the Session, the 29 th Baltic Council, a cooperation platform for parliaments and governments, was held, during which the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the three Baltic States reaffirmed their unwavering support for Ukraine. Speech by the President of the BSPC During the Session, President of the Baltic Assembly Timo Suslov highlighted that the Baltic Assembly can only imagine their work with international experience. “We highly value our cooperation with international partners because by acting together and pooling our forces, we become stronger,” he emphasised. Afterwards, the representatives of the international partner organisations addressed the Session participants. BSPC President Henrik Møller conveyed the warmest greetings from the BSPC to the Baltic Assembly and informed that the close cooperation between the two organisations has been based on deep mutual trust, reliability, and friendship for many years. Many colleagues of the Baltic Assembly are also very involved in the BSPC’s work. Mr Møller assured the Chair of the Cooperation Council of the Baltic Council of Ministers and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Estonia Margus Tsahkna, who had expressed concern about being left alone that the Baltic countries are not alone – not now and not in the future. “The same goes for Ukraine – you will never be alone in the war against Russian aggression. Not now and not in the future,” he stated. President Møller also pointed out that strengthening the parliamentary dimension of international cooperation is of fundamental importance, particularly in these times of war. The Baltic Assembly and the BSPC have common goals, particularly about the war of aggression by the Russian Federation against the sovereignty, the independence, and the people of Ukraine. That full-scale brutal military attack rattled the foundations of continental stability and beyond. Russia has trampled on the principles that had been the cornerstone of peace and stability for many decades. Therefore, the Russian attack on Ukraine, contrary to international law, was again one of the core topics of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference in August. Regarding the unanimously adopted resolution, the president explained that the first part of the resolution deals exclusively with the war in Ukraine. It is once again an expression of the BSPC’s full support for Ukraine and powerfully underlines the need to fully restore Ukraine’s territorial integrity, which explicitly includes the Crimean peninsula. Lastly, Mr Møller highlighted that during the Danish BSPC Presidency, the focus will be on safety in the Baltic Sea region through the lenses of energy supply security, defence, and climate change. Energy supply security is a fundamental component of regional stability. “It is essential that we meet with each other and work with each other for these common goals. Let us continue to work together with unwavering commitment and cooperation on a future for the Baltic Sea region that is safe, green, and filled with opportunities for our youth,” he encouraged. Future work of the Baltic Assembly At the end of the Session, the participants were introduced to the programme for Lithuania’s Presidency of the Baltic Assembly for 2024. The motto of the Lithuanian Presidency will be “Growing strong and resilient together”. The focus will be on three priorities: 1) the Baltic region confident in its security, development, and resilience; 2) connected, innovative and sustainable Baltic States; and 3) unity, support, and consistency in facing regional challenges. Vice President of the Baltic Assembly Andrius Kupčinskas affirmed that connectivity, innovations and sustainability are of great importance for regional development. Therefore, that will also be at the core of the work of the Baltic Assembly in 2024; regional connectivity, smart growth and sustainable development have always been high on the agenda of the Baltic Assembly, and in 2024, the parliamentarians will continue to work towards improving existing and finding new solutions to common challenges. After adopting the Resolution and the Final Document of the 42 nd Session, the President of the Baltic Assembly, Timo Suslov, transferred the presidency statuette to Vice President Andrius Kupčinskas , symbolising that Lithuania will take over the presidency in the Baltic Assembly on 1 January 2024. Intensifying Cooperation In the margins of the session and afterwards, the members of the BSPC delegation deepened the cooperation and joint issues with the Baltic Assembly, experts and the representatives of the International parliamentary organisations. For additional information, see: https://www.baltasam.org/42-session-ba-29-baltic-council

During the second day of its meeting in Maribo, Denmark, the BSPC Standing Committee toured the site where the Danish end of the Fehmarn Belt tunnel is being built. Set to fundamentally improve, facilitate and accelerate transport flows between Scandinavia and continental Europe from various perspectives, it is expected to become a major transport route. Afterwards, the Standing Committee discussed ways to better protect maritime infrastructure and to improve safety and the security landscape in the Baltic Sea Region. Presentations BSPC President Henrik Møller remarked that the Fehmarn belt tunnel was one of the most significant projects in Denmark in recent years. He believed that it would have a great impact on the Baltic Sea area in cutting down travel times, comparing it to the Rail Baltica project the BSPC Working Group had visited in Riga. Within four weeks, the BSPC had visited Europe’s currently hugest construction sites and informed about the progress. Presentatio n by Mr Jens Ole Kaslund, Technical Director Mr Jens Ole Kaslund explained how the Fehmarn Belt tunnel would reduce travel times. A car would pass through at 110 km/hr in 10 minutes, a train in just 7 minutes at 200 km/hr. Thus, the current travel time from Copenhagen to Hamburg of about 5 hours would shrink to half that, saving 160 kilometres. He explained that at 18 kilometres of length this would be the world’s longest immersed tunnel and, simultaneously, the longest combined road and rail tunnel. The individual elements of the tunnel were pushed into place by tugboats and then sunk into the prepared tunnel trench. Special maintenance elements were interspersed over the length of the tunnel, allowing traffic to continue for most maintenance operations. Looking at the bigger picture, he laid out the various other connections that had been built earlier, such as the Fehmarnsund bridge on the German side and the Danish Hinterland Railway in Denmark. Several of the railway connections in both countries had to be upgraded to accommodate greater traffic volumes. Zooming out even further, the Fehmarn Belt was part of the overall trans-European transport network connecting the continent from the high north to the deep south. Mr Kaslund moved on to the financing which was based on state-guaranteed loans over an expected amortisation period of 28 years, with additional support of 1.1 billion euros from the EU. He mentioned that they had already proofed this financing model in the earlier Great Belt Bridge and Øresund Bridge projects. Its construction budget of 7.1 billion euros (in 2015 prices) would be wholly covered by the future users since all cars, lorries, and trains would have to pay a fee for transit, comparable to a ferry ticket. To a question from Mr Himanshu Gulati , Mr Kaslund explained that the ticket price would likely be around 90 euros. Considering the execution structure, he noted that the contractors were responsible for design, execution, and quality while the stateside was monitoring and supervising operations to ensure the work’s quality. A large number of companies had already been hired for the tunnel, the portals and ramps, the dredging and reclamation process, installations as well as finally the railway contracts. Moving on to the timetable, Mr Kaslund noted that two work harbours had already been built at both endpoints. The tunnel trench had been almost finished, requiring some additional work in 2024. The first portals and ramps would be installed in the coming months, expected to run well into 2025. From 2024 to 2027, the tunnel elements would be produced and placed. Placing the final connecting element between both tunnel ends, the ongoing installation work, and thorough testing would take the project into 2029 for its estimated opening. Mr Johannes Schraps inquired about the original schedule. Mr Kaslund replied that earliest estimates at the start of the undertaking in 2002 had targeted 2018. The approval process had taken unexpectedly long; moreover, a lawsuit in Germany had delayed the project for two years. Mr Bodo Bahr remarked that, to his knowledge, there were 100 people working on the German side while the Danish side employed 1,700 people. Mr Kaslund knew of several reasons for this disparity, but primarily, it was due to the factory producing the elements with 1,000 employees was situated in Denmark. In general, it was a Danish project with Danish financing. As far as the work on the tunnel was concerned, about the same number of workers were busy, and the German side would catch up to the Danish progress soon. Mr Schraps asked about the major challenges. Among those, Mr Kaslund saw the early optimism about the speed of the German approval process as a top obstacle that had to be overcome. This had led to difficult negotiations in the contracting process. Aside from that, more – as he put it – classic challenges were coming in the construction itself, with the exacting work of depositing and connecting the elements. Ms Anna Kassautzki asked about the emergency response plans as well as the compensation plans for the environmental impact, especially regarding carbon-capturing seaweed. On the safety side, Mr Kaslund noted that emergency doors were placed every 100 metres throughout the tunnel, allowing evacuation from the railway tube into the car section. Conversely, in the case of a car accident, people could transit into the road section in the opposite direction. In both cases, they would be picked up by bus and brought to safety. The sections would be closed off, to prevent people from trying to walk up to nine kilometres to the exit. Furthermore, the ventilation system would keep the other tubes clear. Regarding the environment, he saw the major impact on land since the dredged-up soil would be deposited behind the dykes on the Danish side. Some of that would form new beaches for leisure time, others would serve renaturalisation efforts. After the tunnel was in place, the seabed would restore itself through sand movement covering the construction. As for seaweed, most of the tunnel was too deep for the plants to grow, so they were investigating the shallower ends for replanting. Prof Jānis Vucāns was interested in the financing and ownership. Mr Kaslund explained that his company managing construction and later operations was fully state-owned. To a further question about the ferries, he noted those companies believed they would continue their operations. He also confirmed a comment by President Møller that the ferry enterprises had lobbied to stop the tunnel project. Mr Kaslund showed a number of pictures outlining the construction process at both endpoints and the elements. He also referred to the recent heavy storm “of the century” surge that had caused no damage on the Danish side but had crested the dyke on the German side, delaying work for two weeks. Moving on, he spoke about his side’s strategic priorities for sustainability, categorized into environment, social, and corporate governance. In the social aspects, his side was engaging the local community, creating well-paying, diverse jobs along with training the staff. With 500 apprenticeships, these were not only jobs but ensured future capabilities. Community engagement was represented by a newsletter for neighbours as well as visitor centres and lookout points. In addition, there were civic meetings and events such as open site visits or World Cleanup Day. Regarding the environmental impact, he noted that the tunnel was set to last for 120 years despite the harsh marine surrounding; they were trying to use as climate-friendly as possible materials, but unfortunately the older substances were the ones proven to survive such long-term exposure rather than the less carbon-heavy newer materials. The areas covered by construction were counterbalanced by renaturalisation projects. A round-the-clock monitoring system called Aegir had been set up that allowed for full transparency. Environmental experts could follow developments minute by minute, and the relevant data was saved. Mr Bodo Bahr remarked that the safety of critical infrastructure was becoming a crucial topic and asked how that had affected the tunnel project. Mr Kaslund replied that the construction was conforming to all the regulations but had not taken extra measures. He felt that protection was up to the navy or similar institutions. Ms Anna Kassautzki asked if the construction reflected the likelihood of more extreme weather events such as the recent “storm of the century”. Mr Kaslund confirmed that there were pressure systems to prevent flooding, adding that the dykes were set up to prevent so-called ten-thousand-year rather than hundred-year events. Mr Himanshu Gulati inquired about comparisons to other projects. Mr Kaslund reflected that the Øresund tunnel of some four kilometres length had served as a template, along with a similar project in Hong Kong. The Fehmarn Belt tunnel was the latest incarnation with the most developed technology. Ms Kristina Herbst wondered about working from two sides towards the middle. Mr Kaslund saw this as offering more flexibility in the construction process, ensuring that one side would always make progress even if the other might be facing problems. Overall, it was simply a faster process. To another question, he answered that the deepest point of the tunnel would be 45 metres below the sea level. The participants deepened further questions with Mr Kaslund during the subsequent tour of the visitor centre and the construction site. Moving on to the next presentation in Maribo, BSPC President Henrik Møller noted that defence was one of the cornerstones of the Baltic Sea region’s security architecture and one of the Danish presidency’s core issues. Thus, he was glad to welcome Mr Tobias Liebetrau from the Department of Political Science at the University of Copenhagen as an expert. His current research covered four main areas: cybersecurity, great power rivalry and technology development, big tech international politics as well as maritime sub-sea infrastructure. His presentation to the BSPC Standing Committee was entitled: Maritime Infrastructure and the Baltic Sea Security Landscape. P resentation by Mr Tobias Liebetrau, University of Copenhagen Mr Tobias Liebetrau started by pointing out the increased interest in maritime infrastructure – not just because modern society was more and more relying on it but also because of recent incidents threatening it. First, he explained that maritime infrastructure consisted of the sectors transport – shipping but also bridges –, energy – platforms, pipelines –, communications – data cables –, fishery – ships and aquaculture –, and eco-systems – biodiversity, carbon sink, and beaches. The latter two were often not included, yet these were also important to consider and protect. It was just as vital to acknowledge that they were reliant on each other. Therefore, it made sense to look at maritime infrastructure as a whole rather than splitting it up into separate fields. At the same time, it was different from region to region, with the Baltic Sea region for instance being quite congested. Unfortunately, this infrastructure field was weakly defined from a policy point of view, with a wide divergence among nations in what was considered politically what was critical and what was not. Moving on to the threats to this infrastructure, one distinction was whether they were intentional or not. The latter were natural disasters and accidents contrasted with the former, i.e., acts of war, terrorism, grey zone and hybrid attacks. Mr Liebetrau stated that preparations against conventional war-time attacks were in place across the board, but those incidents intentionally straddling the line – such as sabotage – were more difficult to tackle. He pointed out that many of these were not easy to categorise, as, for instance, state-sponsored sabotage could be made to look like an accident or terrorism. Deterrence had not worked, he noted, referring to the Nord Stream attack. Thus, resilience was crucial. Specifically, he addressed a recent incident when a Baltic connector and a telecom cable between Finland and Sweden were hit on 8 October 2023. While an accident could not be ruled out, suspicious though inconclusive evidence linked a Russian and a Chinese vessel, underlining the difficulty of identifying possible culprits or even intent in the first place. To him, that indicated the need for better protection of these vulnerable pieces of the maritime infrastructure. At the same time, he argued for better surveillance of the locations and actions of ships – such as the Russian vessel in question. Mr Liebetrau pointed to a number of initiatives to improve critical maritime infrastructure on the EU and NATO level. At the same time, one had to keep in mind that each region had its specific characteristics with different types of infrastructure, various countries, and divergent threats. As an example, he explained that sub-sea data cables in the Baltic Sea mainly connected two countries, were owned by one company or nation, and tended to be thirty years old and would have to be replaced. In the North Sea, on the other hand, many American big tech companies owned intercontinental data cables. The next aspect was greater collaboration and information exchange across countries but also between the public and private sectors as well as in-between private companies. He highlighted the often complex ownership structure, adding to the difficulty. Yet there was a lack of institutions clearly assigned to this task. Subsequently, he spoke about surveillance, threat detection, and rapid response. He saw these areas equally underdeveloped. Technologies such as undersea drones were available and could be put into action at affordable costs. Contingency and repair were the next field Mr Liebetrau addressed as it might mitigate the impact of any grey zone attack – which would also lower the interest in such actions. As an example, coordination between industry and public authorities might speed up repairs to undersea cables that otherwise would take weeks or months. This led him to call for better aligned governance and legislation, both at the Baltic Sea and the European level. President Møller asked how the surveillance situation had changed with Finland and – hopefully – Sweden both joining NATO. Mr Liebetrau confirmed that this would increase the capacity for keeping track of the goings-on, but it would require more governance measures for this integration. This opened a window of opportunity to implement these, to improve surveillance as well as cooperation and information sharing. Ms Anna Kassautzki was interested in specific measures to protect the infrastructure. Mr Liebetrau pointed to sensors that could be installed in data cables and pipelines which could detect sound and movement for surveillance, although this was a costly endeavour. Moreover, multiple different measures were needed for better coverage. At the same time, though, they could also be used to investigate biodiversity and the seabed. Prof Jānis Vucāns wondered how countries could enforce that private companies setting up such infrastructure would implement security measures. Mr Liebetrau conceded that such incentivising was a challenge, and it had been for decades since nations had sold off their infrastructure. 9/11, the Madrid bombings, and many subsequent cases had led to airflight security being tightened, more recently cybersecurity. Some of this experience could be drawn upon to transfer to maritime security. Mr Bodo Bahr wondered about plans protecting core projects in the Baltic Sea area, particularly regarding maritime law and the IMO. Mr Liebetrau was not aware of any legal initiatives. Again, he pointed to a better alignment of national laws and the interpretation of maritime law as a way forward. As for specific measures, he noted that some offshore projects were being delayed because it was uncertain what should be imposed on the private companies and how that would affect their profitability. In Denmark, this was a huge discussion. Mr Møller considered that covert measures would seem more probable. Mr Liebetrau sketched out the most likely scenario involving the use of fishing vessels or other commercial merchant ships disguised as normal traffic. Cables and pipelines could be sufficiently damaged with an anchor or a dredge; no high-tech explosives were needed. This was also where their side was more vulnerable. In other words, simple and limited measures could exact considerable damage. BSPC President Henrik Møller thanked the expert for the profound insight into the current challenges regarding Maritime Infrastructure and the Baltic Sea Security Landscape. The issue will be further deepened during the Danish Presidency. The BSPC Standing Committee meeting was concluded with an outlook on its next meeting on 4 March 2024.

The Standing Committee of the BSPC met for a two-day meeting in Maribo, Denmark, focusing on increasing interconnectivity as well as on defence and regional security. The meeting also reflected the past Annual Conference, cooperation across the wider region, and further redefining the organisation’s structure. Connections were at the forefront of the conversation as on the second day of the meeting, Monday 13 November 2023, the Standing Committee would visit the Danish construction site of the Fehmarn Belt tunnel about to improve the connections between Scandinavia and continental Europe. The meeting included more than 30 participants from the Baltic Assembly, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, the German Bundestag, Hamburg, Latvia, Lithuania, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Norway, Poland, Schleswig-Holstein and Sweden. Introduction BSPC President Henrik Møller explained that the area of Maribo had once been known for turnip production. These days, though, the Fehmarn Belt tunnel was being built to create a new connection between Denmark and Germany, setting completely new standards for transportation between both countries. It was raising the standard in this region and beyond. The Standing Committee would visit the site the following day. He outlined that he had already represented the BSPC at two international events: At the European Conference of Presidents of Parliament in Dublin, he had underscored solidarity with Ukraine, while at the Nordic Council session in Oslo, he had presented the central focal points of the Danish presidency: energy as the lifeblood of the Baltic Sea economy, defence as the cornerstone of regional security architecture as well as continued efforts to mitigate the impact of climate change. Mr Møller stressed that continued dialogue was more crucial than ever in these ongoing crises to overcome even the most challenging obstacles. Follow-up to the 32 nd BSPC President Møller appreciated the work of the German Bundestag in organising this year’s conference, the excellent programme, and the vivid open political debates. He also praised the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum, which had been held back-to-back with the conference, for its engagement. The present members of the Standing Committee commented on the conference, highlighting the reception by the federal president of the Federal Republic of Germany apart from the political discussions. Regarding the Youth Forum, Secretary General Bodo Bahr underlined that the BSPC was currently the only organisation to include young people’s recommendations in their resolution. Regarding that resolution, the president explained that, as every year, the delegations would send it to their governments, asking for a report on its implementation. For the deadline, the Standing Committee agreed on 15 April 2024. Furthermore, it was noted that the written reports of the BSPC Rapporteurs on topics focused on by preceding working groups were available on the BSPC website, namely on Sea-Dumped Ammunitions, HELCOM, Integrated Maritime Policy, and Sustainable Tourism. BSPC Working Group on Energy Security, Self-sustainability, Resilience, and Connectivity BSPC President Henrik Møller explained that there had been changes to the working group since the originally appointed chairperson, Mr Kaspars Briškens, had in the meantime, become Minister of Transport of Latvia and thus was no longer available for the working group. In his stead, Mr Andris Kulbergs, also from Latvia, had been named chairperson by the members of the working group, with Mr Philipp da Cunha from Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Mr Marius Arion Nilsen from Norway as vice-chairs. Mr Møller recounted the new working group’s first meeting in Riga, where they had visited exciting on-site facilities, such as Rail Baltica, along with high-level representation, among them the originally intended chairperson of the working group, now-Minister Briškens. Prof Jānis Vucāns provided some additional insight regarding the sites visited. The president noted that a detailed report was available on the BSPC website. He further explained that the working group had already set its upcoming meetings throughout the Danish presidency, along with which parliament would be hosting these. The Standing Committee confirmed the appointment of Mr Andris Kulbergs as Chair of the BSPC Working Group on Energy Security, Self-sustainability, Resilience, and Connectivity and took note of the further information. BSPC Finances As per the Rules and Procedures of the BSPC, the Standing Committee discussed its budget at this autumn meeting, in light of the intended changes to the structure of the organisation as well as the increased support for smaller parliaments hosting meetings and conferences. Ms Carola Veit , Mr Johannes Schraps , Mr Henrik Møller , Prof Jānis Vucāns , and Secretary General Bodo Bahr contributed. The Standing Committee decided to approve the current budget as well as maintain the sum of the contributions from the members for 2024. Possible Joint Meetings of the BSPC with other parliamentary assemblies The meeting discussed in-depth the conditions for joint meetings with other parliamentary organisations. It was strongly argued to avoid joint meetings with those not clearly distancing themselves from Russia. The meeting decided not to pursue joint meetings with other parliamentary organisations if an apparent distancing from the aggressor is not fulfilled. The 33 rd Conference in Helsingør in 2024 President Møller noted that preparations were in progress and that high-level participation was sought for the conference. Currently, they were in contact with appropriate representatives. Mr Møller , Ms Carola Veit and Mr Bodo Bahr considered increasing the framework for discussion among the parliamentarians. Prof Jānis Vucāns and Mr Johannes Schraps spoke about how the European elections might affect the invitations of EU representatives. Future Accommodation of the BSPC Secretariat Previously, an Enlarged Presidium Working Group had been formed, made up of the then-presidium under the German Bundestag presidency, enriched by former BSPC presidents, to explore this question. Their conclusion, after intensive and wide-ranging discussion had been to assign a BSPC representative to conduct negotiations with the Nordic House and the CBSS. Ms Kristina Herbst submitted a preliminary proposal of the Schleswig-Holstein parliament to take over the secretariat functions for five years, starting in view of their presidency of the BSPC in 2025, as the parliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern had done nine years ago for a specific time. A complete proposal would be presented at the Standing Committee meeting in Brussels in March 2024. Mr Henrik Møller , Mr Johannes Schraps , Ms Carola Veit , Mr Timo Suslov , and Mr Bodo Bahr further considered this matter. The Standing Committee decided to, on the one hand, grant Schleswig-Holstein the time to finalise their proposal while, on the other hand, assigning a mandate for negotiations with the Nordic Council and the CBSS to Mr Møller, Mr Schraps, and Mr Bahr. A final decision was then envisaged at the March 2024 meeting of the Standing Committee. BSPC Rapporteurs and Observer The BSPC Standing Committee confirmed a rearrangement of BSPC Rapporteurs and Observers as Ms Saara-Sofia Sirén left her long-held position as BSPC Co-Observer at HELCOM. Apart from that, the chairman of the now concluded BSPC Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity, Mr Philipp da Cunha, had been appointed rapporteur on that field instead of his previous function as Co-Rapporteur on Integrated Maritime Affairs. In both cases, their respective colleagues will continue their long-standing reporting in these functions: Ms Beate Schluppon HELCOM and Mr Jörgen Pettersson on Maritime Affairs. BSPC President Henrik Møller thanked all BSPC Rapporteurs and Observers for their high engagement and precious work. Further Matters BSPC President Henrik Møller noted that the deputy presiding officer of the Scottish Parliament had expressed great interest in closer cooperation with the BSPC. The president invited the Scottish Parliament to attend the 33 rd BSPC Conference in Helsingør. The Standing Committee further discussed their upcoming meetings. A meeting planned for the Faroe Islands – for the first time in BSPC history – was set for 9 – 10 June 2024.

With the unanimous adoption of the 32 nd resolution on 29 August 2023, the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference established a new Working Group on Energy Security, Self-sustainability, Resilience and Connectivity. The ESSRC Working Group held its first meeting on 15-16 October 2023 in Riga, Latvia. More than 30 participants – mainly delegations from the Åland Islands, the Baltic Assembly, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Hamburg, Latvia, Lithuania, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Norway, Poland, Schleswig-Holstein, and Sweden – participated. Within the framework of a comprehensive programme, the working group discussed intensively plans to strengthen cooperation for ensuring energy security, self-sustainability, resilience, and connectivity in the region. BSPC President Henrik Møller opened the inaugural meeting and wished the working group great success in reaching its goals. The working group unanimously appointed Mr Andris Kulbergs, Latvia, as chairman. Chair of the WG ESSRC Andris Kulbergs emphasised that the primary focus of the meeting was to establish a plan and the main principles that would guide the discussions and activities within the working group from October 2023 to June 2025. On-Site Visits: Hydroelectric Power and Rail Baltica Before the start of the detailed deliberations, the participants had the opportunity to visit the Riga Hydroelectric Power Plant (HPP). During the visit, the Manager of Riga HPP Automation Service, Mr Dainis Pāls , and the Board Member responsible for Production, Mr Harijs Teters , informed the working group about the history and work of the HPP. They explained that the HPP is the newest and second largest power plant on the river Daugava, producing 402 MW generated by 6 hydraulic aggregates. The reservoir serves for the production of green energy as well as providing the city of Riga with technical and drinking water. Afterwards, the members of the working group undertook an on-site visit to the Riga Central Station. They were welcomed by the Minister of Transport of the Republic of Latvia, Mr Kaspars Briškens , who emphasised the importance of the Rail Baltica project and the progress that had been achieved. He stressed that Rail Baltica was not just a railway project – rather, it was an ecosystem that would help form a new economic and security corridor. “The construction site in Riga will create a modern and multimodal traffic hub. The construction and design progress can be seen throughout the Baltics,” Briškens said. The most important elements of the Rail Baltica global project update were presented by the Chief Technical Officer and Member of the Management Board at RB Rail AS, Mr Emilien Dang . Afterwards, the Chairman of the Board of the national implementing body Eiropas Dzelzceļa līnijas, Mr Kaspars Vingris , spoke about Latvia’s progress implementing the project, especially the ongoing work at two construction sites – Riga Airport and the Riga Central Station. Lastly, Mr Guntis Āboltiņš-Āboliņš , executive director of the construction association BERERIX, presented a video on the progress of the construction at the Rail Baltica Riga Central Junction facility. Later on during their visit, the parliamentarians were given a tour of one of the largest construction sites of Rail Baltica, representing a highly complex engineering task. Seeing that allowed the visitors to visually understand the project’s size and future functionality. During the meeting, the parliamentarians from the Baltic Sea states also had the opportunity to gain insights from experts in the field and assess potential areas of cooperation related to the topics covered by the working group. Expert Presentations Minister Kaspars Briškens identified n umerous potential areas of cooperation for the Baltic Sea states , including the development of integrated railway networks , air connectivity within and beyond the region, sea freight and passenger connections, broadband internet and 5G cooperation as well as supporting energy interconnections. Mr Briškens emphasised the vital role of the Rail Baltica project in the broader trans-European transport network, notably within the North Sea-Baltic Sea corridor and the Baltic-Black-Aegean Sea corridor. He added that the project would encompass increasing the potential of the infrastructure, enhancing regional connectivity and ensuring better integration into the national transport network as well as regional traffic. Deputy State Secretary of the Ministry of Climate and Energy of Latvia, Ms Līga Rozentāle , underlined Latvia’s reliance on renewable energy sources, particularly hydropower constituting 70 % of the country’s electricity generation. She highlighted cooperation with Lithuania for natural gas supply and collaborative efforts with Estonia to explore additional gas sources when needed. Ms Rozentāle also presented the energy policy roadmap and its focus on self-consumption improvement, wind energy development, synchronisation with continental Europe, and various initiatives to address energy poverty while stressing efficient resource utilisation and grid optimisation. Mr Kristaps Ločmelis , Regulatory Affairs Director of the state-owned Latvian electric utility company “Latvenergo” and Chairman of the Supervisory Board at “Sadales tīkls” maintaining and developing the country’s electrical network, gave another presentation. He emphasised his company’s leading role in energy supply and green energy generation within the Baltic States. He informed the participants about the company’s diversified portfolio, covering hydropower plants, combined heat and power facilities, district heating plants, and small decentralised units, all operating within the market. Mr Ločmelis also added that Latvenergo’s strategy was focused on climate neutrality, welcoming connectivity initiatives to tap into the Baltic States’ renewable energy potential, and drawing inspiration from neighbours dedicated to this path. Energy market analyst Reinis Āboltiņš informed the parliamentarians of the Baltic Sea states about the underutilisation of wind energy in the Nordic-Baltic region , particularly where demand was exceeding supply. He also underlined the importance of diversifying energy portfolios and implementing hybrid energy systems, further noting the challenges in competing with LNG. Mr Āboltiņš added that increasing the interconnectivity of markets in the region was vital but also that the potential for green gas to partially replace natural gas could be explored further. Chairman Andris Kulbergs concluded very active discussions between the members of the WG by emphasising the opportunity for the BSPC in strengthening and further exploring energy cooperation and interconnectivity of the region. He also highlighted the importance of energy security in the face of energy challenges that could be observed in Ukraine. Mr Kulbergs noted the necessity for harmonised efforts, especially concerning hydrogen policy, and the value of shared consumption and balancing plans as well as data collection for addressing common issues. The Chair of the working group also pointed out the significance of transport and digital connectivity in ensuring security and information exchange between the countries represented in the BSPC. Programme and Chairmanship of the New Working Group The members of the Working Group on Energy Security, Self-sustainability, Resilience and Connectivity appointed Mr Philipp da Cunha , Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, and Mr Marius Arion Nilsen , Norway, vice-chairs. The WG ESSRC has two main directions. The first concerns energy security and self-sustainability of the region, with the main topics including 1) joint approaches in preventing dependency on Russian fossil energy; 2) enhancing cooperation to ensure clean and affordable energy; 3) encouraging collaboration in energy and sustainability research and innovation; and 4) exploring cooperation regarding hydrogen policies in the region. The second direction deals with interconnectivity and resilience of the Baltic Sea states, focusing on 1) joint measures towards an open, competitive, fully integrated, and resilient regional energy market; 2) building interconnected, sustainable, and resilient transport systems together; and 3) accelerating the transition to a single digital market resilient to internal and external threats. The members of the working group agreed on the meeting plan and decided that the next meeting would be held in Helsinki, Finland, on 17-18 March 2024.

In Dublin, the presidents and speakers of parliaments and parliamentary assemblies like the BSPC declared their continuing support for Ukraine and the Ukrainian people, their drive to restore the people’s confidence in democracy, and reflecting those democratic values also through equal and diverse public representation in parliaments. BSPC President Henrik Møller addressed the conference. Introduction Every two years, the presidents and speakers of parliaments of the Council of Europe as well as interparliamentary assemblies come together to discuss the issues of the day. The latest meeting was held in Dublin from 28 – 29 September 2023, continuing a tradition begun in 1975. More than 60 parliamentary heads and some 400 delegates assembled at the Irish parliament to concentrate on three themes, after a pre-conference event had investigated “Hate speech and threats of violence against elected representatives”. Consequences of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and role of national parliaments in Ukraine’s reconstruction As the 4 th Summit of the Council of Europe Heads of State and Government declared its support for Ukraine in its defensive war and the subsequent reconstruction efforts, the parliamentarians spoke about how they could help implement these goals. Speech by Mr Henrik Møller, President of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference (BSPC) Mr Møller began by stating that they were all living in a time of sea change. European peace and stability had been trampled on by Russia’s war of aggression. Ever closer cooperation was the only way to respond adequately. The BSPC’s most recent annual conference in Berlin had once more dealt in-depth with the war in Ukraine, underlining the need to fully restore Ukraine’s entire territorial integrity in its resolution. At the same time, it was the moral duty of parliaments to actively support the reconstruction of civil architecture in the country, through resources, joint initiatives, and advocating for international assistance in forums such as the UN and the EU. Along with infrastructure, the democratic structures of Ukraine and the rule of law had to be reinforced with the expert assistance of democratic parliaments – to shore up Ukraine’s democratic resilience and thus everyone’s long-term security. Preserving and rebuilding cultural heritage through exchange programmes, funding, and cooperation was another vital task. Mr Møller furthermore highlighted the need to further collaborate to investigate human rights abuses, war crimes, and violations of international law and hold those responsible to account. Here, he saw the Council of Europe as crucial in promoting democratic security, calling on his fellow parliamentarians to actively support its initiatives to protect human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Supporting Ukraine not only benefited that country but all of Europe. Strong democracies could make a difference in their efforts for peace and prosperity: together and united – anchored in their values. In the light of contributions like the BSPC president’s, the delegates and speakers determined the importance of keeping the real stakes of this war in the public attention and using the strength of national parliaments to set the course of Europe’s destiny. National budgets had to ensure the continued support of Ukraine during the fighting but also already preview the reconstruction effort. The conference highlighted the democratic resilience of Ukraine which had to be both protected and nurtured on the country’s path into the European Union. It also fell to parliaments to contribute to alleviate the suffering of the Ukrainian civil population, in particular children and victims of sexual violence, not least by sheltering refugees. At the same time, it was deemed vital to pursue accountability for the Russian leadership in order to bring the perpetrators to justice. The challenges to representative democracy in volatile times Considering the low trust in representative democracy, with increased alienation and weakened links between the public and their representatives, misinformation and fake news exacerbated an already troublesome situation. The conference thus saw a need for strengthening – and perhaps even reshaping – the systems of governance as a firm bedrock from which to respond effectively to national and global challenges. The core values of democracy had to be reinforced through measures such as nurturing citizen engagement and bridging that disconnect between citizens and parliaments. Ms Yaël Braun-Pivet, President of the French National Assembly, called for a “new confidence pact with citizens.” The cornerstone of free and fair elections should be underlined, by combining elections on one day, facilitating secure online elections, and lowering the voting age limits. Mr Lauri Hussar, President of the Riigikogu (Estonia), pointed out that “innovative methods” such as online voting, as his country had established, would allow politics “to engage with young people.” This went hand in hand with combating disinformation, in particular through malign foreign actors, by greater transparency on the one hand and fact-checking as well as social media company accountability on the other. Such countermeasures were needed to shore up the democratic foundations, rather than permitting them to be undermined. Equality and diversity in public representation – the participation of young people, women and ethnic and social groups as members of parliament Picking up on the distance between the populace and their representatives, the conference agreed that equality in public representation was fundamental for true democracy, reflecting the people as a whole. This included in particular young people who were barely represented in public life but a large part of the population. Not only should they be given a voice but also granted inclusive education with opportunities for all. But women, disabled people, sexual and gender minorities, ethnic minorities, and disabled people had to take their seats at the table, too. Tools such as quotas had proven their worth in increasing equality and diversity, as had dialogue and scientific research to showcase the benefits to the population at large. The conference also stressed the need to adapt parliamentary infrastructure and working methods to remove practical obstacles and, at the same time, serve as an example to the nations. Intensifying Cooperation In the margins of the conference, the BSPC President and the BSPC Secretary General discussed a range of issues with Presidents and Vice-presidents as well as Secretaries General of attending parliaments and parliamentary organisations. For additional detailed information, see: https://pace.coe.int/en/pages/2023confpres

The 32 nd Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference in Berlin was an outstanding success. With the unanimous adoption of the resolution on ‘Boosting Democratic, Digital and Maritime Resilience Based on Reliable Neighbourliness and Close Cooperation’ the annual conference in the German Bundestag was successfully concluded. On the second day, the conference conducted an in-depth investigation into the impact of climate change, particularly on biodiversity, and what measures were taken and should be taken. The final report of the just concluded BSPC Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity was presented. In a lively and open general debate, many viewpoints and ideas were shared, before the BSPC Rapporteurs on Migration and Integration as well as on Sea-Dumped Ammunitions gave their annual updates. Finally, the BSPC-Presidency was transferred from the German Bundestag to the Danish Folketinget. FOURTH SESSION Panel discussion: Strengthening the resilience of climate and biodiversity Chaired by Mr Jarosław Wałęsa and Ms Lene Westgaard-Halle , the session was concerned with presenting the work of the BSPC in the past years. As the previous day had shown the frightening speed of climate change, Mr Wałęsa it was up to the parliamentarians to present ambitious targets and look for solutions. Presentation of the Final Report of the Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity by Chairman Philipp da Cunha Mr Philipp da Cunha explained that the report summarised three years of intensive parliamentary work and issues that would be defining challenges of the 21 st century. July 2023 had been the hottest on record, sea ice had been at a historic low, and global ocean surface temperatures had reached record highs. In the Baltic Sea, the rise of air temperature had exceeded the worldwide trend. The ice extent had shrunk while precipitation had increased. Moreover, the Arctic was experiencing up to four times faster warming than the rest of the globe, with severe impacts on marine life. The IPCC had emphasised this year that proof of negative impacts was increasing the urgency of worldwide climate action. Denying that would not prevent wildfires, droughts, storms, and other extreme weather events. No one country could solve these issues alone, making international collaboration indispensable. At the same time, successful mitigation work relied on working with local partners in local settings. Mr da Cunha thanked his predecessor, Ms Cecilie Tenfjord-Toftby, for leading the first two years of the working group. Topics that the working group had investigated and presented best practice examples on included sustainable fisheries, carbon sequestration, island habitability, and sustainable energy. Moreover, they had looked at climate change in the Arctic and restoring peatlands. In that, the group had spoken with government officials, entrepreneurs, researchers, representatives from civil society, and news representatives. In addition, two surveys had been conducted among the governments of the BSPC, considering in the first current and planned climate and biodiversity legislation as well as in the second the effect of the war in Ukraine on climate policy goals and implementation. The final report offered a unique and comprehensive overview of the knowledge, experiences, best practices as well as existing policies and projects in the region. The working group’s recommendations condensed the wealth of knowledge into 25 focused, far-reaching yet pragmatic calls that had been integrated into the BSPC Conference Resolution. Speech by Ms Ditte Juul Jørgensen, Director-General, DG Energy, European Commission Ms Ditte Juul Jørgensen mentioned the pipeline carrying natural gas from Norway to Poland as a good example of Baltic cooperation could help secure the energy supply, especially in a crisis situation. The European Commission under Ms Ursula von der Leyen had put climate change and biodiversity at the top of the agenda with the European Green Deal. The war in Ukraine had had a significant impact on energy security, yet solutions had been swiftly found that were in line with the EU’s longer-term climate neutrality objectives. That underlined democracy’s strength. At the same time, it had reinforced the necessity for energy diversity and autonomy, the latter through renewable energy sources. She noted that more work was needed on the impact of climate change on the energy system. 75 % of the CO 2 emissions in Europe came from the energy sector, requiring urgent action through energy efficiency, lower consumption, and more renewable energy production. In 2021, 22 % of renewable energy in the overall energy mix had proven a significant rise from the 10 % in 2005. This trend would accelerate, targeting 42.5 % for 2030 with the aspiration of reaching 45 %. Ms Jørgensen underlined that this ambitious goal meant nearly doubling the current share of renewables within eight years, yet it was necessary. The Baltic Sea with its potential for offshore wind was key in this endeavour. The recent Revised Energy Directive required member states to establish a framework for joint projects across borders and sea basins. She appreciated the already achieved agreements in the Baltic Energy Market Interconnection group, working towards 22.5 gigawatts in 2030 and more than doubling that to 50 gigawatts by 2050 ( https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/infrastructure/high-level-groups/baltic-energy-market-interconnection-plan_en ). The Baltic Sea region could set the pace and provide great rewards for Europe. Moreover, the region was vital for energy security as well. She approved of the three Baltic countries’ agreement to synchronise their electricity system with the European network, moving away from Russia. In general, more investments into the grid and system would be needed to achieve the region’s ambition in energy security as well as the Green Transition and to secure affordable energy. She stressed that biodiversity did not clash with climate change mitigation, although some procedures had to be harmonised to improve protection. Part of this and the roll-out of renewables was hampered by time-consuming bureaucracy. The Revised Energy Directive sought to facilitate an easing of that through strategic planning, comprehensive mapping across sea basins as well as identifying accelerated deployment areas for renewable energy. ( https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/renewable-energy/renewable-energy-directive-targets-and-rules/renewable-energy-directive_en ) In December 2022, the EU member states had adopted an emergency regulation to accelerate the rollout of renewable energy to secure the energy supply. This was a joint effort by all, she underlined. Speech by Ms Lis Lindal Jørgensen, Institute of Marine Research in Norway Ms Lis Lindal Jørgensen spoke about strengthening the resilience of the climate and biodiversity . That meant strengthening the resilience of science, to increase the accuracy and scope. Her institute was one of the largest in Europe concerned with marine research, mainly concerned with monitoring and advice. Communication lines between science and government were very short. Their goal was to achieve an ecosystem-based management of human activities, i.e., how to explore and extract the services of marine areas without harming the ecosystem. She listed three good reason to focus on biodiversity: The UN’s International Biodiversity Agreement (UNFCCC), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and the international agreement on the conservation and sustainable use of marine Biological Biodiversity of areas beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ). To that end, it had to be determined where the thousands of marine species were located in time and space. Her institute had a large fleet for monitoring, for instance in the vast Barents Sea. Standardisation was key, having each ship carry the same type of equipment. Through annual meetings, progress was discussed and standardisation deepened. Her institute was covering temperature, plankton, fish, benthos, sea mammals, and sea birds. Over the past sixty years, the share of Atlantic water in the Barents Sea had increased and that of Arctic water shrunk, decreasing the habitat of Arctic species. This had led to Atlantic species spreading more and more while the Arctic fish had been reduced to a tiny habitat in the high north. The spread of Atlantic species meant that the respective fisheries followed them up north into areas where there had not been any trawling in the past, endangering the biodiversity of bottom dwellers. To protect these vulnerable species, 400,000 km² had been closed to fishing after meetings with all stakeholders. Ms Jørgensen underscored that the same effect was happening in all their waters. Norway had established a huge programme called MAREANO to counter this by mapping all the species. Thus, they could open and close areas depending on the locations of fish fleets but also provide location guidance for offshore energy, deep-sea mining, and the like. At the same time, ice was receding, and there was even more activity within the oceans. Therefore, time- and cost-efficient monitoring had to be implemented to learn more about this. Comprehensive integrated management enabled action when it was detected to be necessary. This meant a transdisciplinary approach including scientists from many different fields, be they sea bird or seismic researchers or experts on seaborne human activities such as tourism. Understanding the pressures created and acting on populations meant that maps could be elaborated showing the risks for species in space and time. As an example, she noted whales spawning in spring in a certain area, resulting in a call to keep ships away; later on, the whales had moved on to another area but could be safely visited by tourism. All in all, her institute was looking to translate this highly complex information into easier-to-understand advice for managers. The speaker went on to pose questions to the assembled parliamentarians. She asked if the governments were ready to receive this kind of advice – meaning that the government side also needed to invite all their sectors to a table to discuss this information. Segregation into silos of sectors was no longer feasible. In addition, she asked how ecosystem-based management could be made more robust in the context of changing political priorities and economic interests. This had to be answered for science resilience. She extended an invitation to a conference on the Arctic in April 2024. Speech by Ms Prof Dr Daniela Jacob, Meteorologist and Director of the Climate Service Center Germany (GERICS) Prof Daniela Jacob saw a possible answer to the issues in the principle of climate-resilient development. That referred to the process of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation measures to support sustainable development for all. It was enabled by increased international cooperation, including improved access to adequate financial resources, particularly for vulnerable regions, sectors, and groups as well as inclusive governance and coordinated policy. These days, it was known that greenhouse gases had changed the atmosphere and how the weather system reacted to that. She pointed to the Paris Agreement and the 1.5 °C threshold. Scientists including her had worked on the 2018 IPCC report detailing the differences between a world at 1.5 °C and at 2 °C increase. From 1960 to 2010, the global temperature had risen by half a degree; just from 2010 to 2023, nearly another half a degree had been added. They were currently 1 to 1.2 °C above pre-industrial levels. This meant that weather extremes were accelerating, as evidenced by the present year. However, it was still manageable. Yet the speed of change was barrelling towards the unmanageable, and that made it urgent to reduce that. She underlined the integrity of the scientists at the IPCC. Now, they had shifted from a risk-oriented to a resilience-based approach which investigated how the human system was developing in conjunction with the ecosystem. The challenge was to integrate all of that. An April paper had looked at the burden on humans: Already in the present, 10 % of the population had been shifted outside the temperature niche of the species. Thus, they required either heating or cooling, i.e., energy. Even with the current pledges to reduce emissions, the trend was heading for a 2.7 °C increase over pre-industrial levels, in which 20 – 30 % of the world’s population would be outside the human temperature niche. Ms Jacob underlined that this was due to the behaviour of people today. Another aspect was lifetime warming: Someone born in 1960 had experienced warming of 0.7 °C, with most of the change only in the last 15 – 20 years. People born today in their lifetime would experience a massive change of 2 °C, 3°C, or even 4 °C. Stability would fall by the wayside. This meant that decisions today had to be taken in light of future effects – not just by politicians but by everybody. The choice had to be to go through the door of green solutions, of climate-based resilience. She called it a privilege to design a new lifestyle of sustainable development. Mr Jarosław Wałęsa asked when the point of no return would be reached. Everyone in the world had to work towards this goal. Until that happened in fact and not just on paper, they would not reach any of their goals. Ms Bryndís Haraldsdóttir asked Ms Lis Lindal Jørgensen how the severing of relations with Russia had affected her work. Mr Staffan Eklöf spoke of the tragedy of the commons, when people with access to a resource acted in their own interest and thus depleted said resource. This applied to the fishery, for instance. The solution was mutual restraint, such as fishing quotas. The Swedish delegation had been pushing to call for lower quotas. Ms Eka von Kalben noted that many people were resisting the steady news of climate doom. As such, she wondered how encouraging signals could be sent to create a positive mood for climate change mitigation. Mr Jens-Holger Schneider noted a statement by Prof Jacob in the margins that the nutrition content in C4 plants was dropping which would cause problems with feeding the human population. Mr Schneider wondered how farmers could react to that today. Prof Daniela Jacob replied that the point of no return depended on what one was looking at. The Earth would not be destroyed, she assured her listeners, but the question in this context was if it would be an Earth with humans living on it. What scientists expected were enormous regional damages impacting other areas, rather than wholesale destruction, by crossing roughly 2.5 °C at the end of the 21 st century. That would mean an ice-free Arctic, major shifts in precipitation and storm shifts, which would cause damage and droughts, destroy food production and technological infrastructure. This absolutely had to be prevented, and that was why global to local policy was indispensable. The local could not wait for the global to agree on the best way forward. Things had to be done now, regardless of others’ actions. This tied in with the need for rapid innovation – both technological and social. She likened this to the Apollo moonshot programme in the 1960s. Moving on to Ms von Kalben’s question, she insisted they still had a window of opportunity. Hiding was not an option; action had to be taken: regional products; de-sealing the concrete in the cities, adding more green to cities to lower the heat; renewable energy completely replacing fossil fuels; looking at the trading systems; innovation in start-ups. There were many positive things that could be done, she insisted. Rather than prohibiting things, she suggested people setting goals for their personal carbon footprint. Regarding the nutrients in plants, Ms Jacob clarified that she was not a biologist. Yet biologists’ reports were worrying. She also made clear that this was not about climate change but about the amount of CO 2 in the atmosphere. That was changing the substances in the plants, although more research was needed. Their nutrient quality seemed to be decreasing, thus affecting meat and fish quality. This underlined the need to keep researching food production and security. It was urgent to find ways to ensure that there would be enough food for humans to eat in fifty years’ time. Ms Lis Lindal Jørgensen pointed to the challenge with Russian participation. The Arctic Council had a rotating two-year presidency for each nation. During the recent Russian leadership, everything had been paused due to the war. Now Norway held the presidency, but Russia had threatened to pull out of the council if treated any differently. This made work extremely difficult. The same applied to the Barents Sea. As for fish quotas, they had to be agreed across borders since fish did not care about them. At the same time, fish might aggregate in one spot – apparently rich fishing grounds – even though the overall population was below sustainability levels. There were three different battlegrounds, each requiring different approaches: climate change, pollution, and species extinction. Ms Ditte Juul Jørgensen underlined the critical need for global action for climate change and the Green Transition. She agreed that there had to be forerunners to pioneer innovation and practice. The EU had shown that greenhouse gas emissions could be reduced while increasing the GDP. Economic growth had been harvested from climate action. More had to be done. The upcoming COP 28 in the United Arab Emirates would be critical. The EU was pushing for global targets and action to be agreed there, with more renewable energies across the world. Regarding the absence of Russia, she noted that the withholding of Russian gas had helped the energy transition. Thirdly, how to people bring aboard, she agreed with Prof Jacob. Change was a privilege, she underlined. The Green Transition brought jobs; renewable energy was the lowest-cost energy. Innovation was necessary to keep Europe pioneering new green technology to achieve the climate targets. Mr Jarosław Wałęsa concluded the session by noting that he was convinced Europe could be a leader in the global change. As a member of the European parliament, he had been involved in negotiating free trade agreements with, e.g., Canada or Japan. He had witnessed European power to convince others to join these agreements under certain environmental conditions. A united Europe could achieve these goals and take matters much further. GENERAL DEBATE The General Debate was chaired by Prof Jānis Vucāns and Ms Bryndís Haraldsdóttir . Mr Himanshu Gulati mentioned two issues he felt would be important in the future. Firstly, the dependency on other nations for rare earths and other minerals needed for technology and the Green Transition had to be lowered, which he deemed as vital as the supply of Russian fossil fuel had been before the war. Secondly, the extreme pace and all-consuming vastness of artificial intelligence (AI) would affect the world immensely. AI could be a great boon, but it also was a tremendous threat to many sides of society. There was a reason that big tech companies had called for a pause to AI research until legislative guidelines could be in place. Europe and the Baltic Sea region had to put this topic high on the agenda. Mr Simon Erik Jyrkaes , BSPYF, saw the production of biofuel as very important for many Baltic Sea countries and appreciated its inclusion in the Resolution as well as acknowledging the threat of dependence on China. Ms Hanna Katrín Friðriksson highlighted that democracy of today rested on the hard work of previous generations. That history had to be taught to young people, to give them the strength for democratic resilience. She appreciated the previous day’s panel on that topic, noting there was a clear connection from hate speech, disinformation and fake news to violence against minorities. She quoted Mr Nemitz from that panel that the European regulations against hate speech ensured freedom of speech and expression. This was enormously important. Ms Friðriksson further underlined the Nordic countries combined efforts to strengthen democracy together with like-minded countries, regions, and people. Together, they would continue to work for democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. Mr Tiit Maran underlined that climate change and biodiversity were deeply connected. He was also grateful for the idea from the previous session that great things started with seemingly small things. Next, he bemoaned that the school curricula had very little on ecosystems and ecology, so that humans felt removed from the natural world. Ms Ingveldur Anna Sigurðardóttir , BSPYF, said that everybody wanted to live in a world of individual freedom and democracy. The Russian aggression had reminded them that democracy was vulnerable. That’s why they had to stand with Ukraine, to keep Europe the continent they wanted to live in. Mr Kaspars Briškens noted the Baltic Sea region’s responsibility to jointly tackle climate change and biodiversity. They should achieve leadership in developing green technology and sharing it. Cross-border transport infrastructure as well as a coherent digital background mattered as well. He highlighted the concept for a working group on these points and hoped the BSPC would continue its work here. Mr Ola Elvestuen commented on the previous session’s powerful message to listen to science and to act on its findings. That was the task of the people in positions of power today, not that of future generations. This was reflected in the BSPC’s Resolution. Furthermore, freedom and democracy had to be defended. It was democratic countries pushing for action on climate change and biodiversity, creating the modern and green market economy. Ms Sidney Gregor-Wielan , BSPYF, referred to Dr Jacob’s suggestion of setting personal carbon footprint goals. Ms Gregor-Wielan was irritated by this because it shifted the focus away from big oil companies to the individual consumers. Fossil fuels were a thing of the past. She called on parliamentarians not to fall for the myth of the individual carbon footprint. Instead, the development of renewable energy had to be promoted. Mr Simon Påvals commented on populism rising today as it had a century before. Democracy required a certain measure of responsibility, interest, understanding, and knowledge acquisition of the population. Its opposite was populism, offering simple solutions to complicated problems, falsely claiming to express the majority view, exploiting people’s fears or ignorance, dismissing scientific facts or fuelling conspiracy theories. History showed the severe damage populism could wreak. Democracy needed constant maintenance and cross-border cooperation towards a better society for each individual. Mr Elias Arndt , BSPYF, raised the problem of verifying accurate information, especially in the digital sphere – given, among others, AI image and text generation. As a software developer, he suggested a data platform to inform journalists and individuals which social media entries were reliable or contained false information. The greatest danger lay in trusted media picking up on misinformation and spreading it. Mr Stanisław Kostulski , BSPYF, appreciated the ability to live a free life as a young person and also the intergenerational solidarity represented at this conference. Mr Marc Timmer highlighted the call in the Resolution to shortening the permitting process. Renewable energy was by now by far the cheapest form of energy. It was crucial to raise the acceptance on site. In that, he found financial support from civil society important. Ms Dominika Maria Łysień , BSPYF, saw energy consumption rising continuously. She saw this as the moment to go for green solutions through renewable energy production but vitally also energy storage. Autonomous energy production in Europe could make the continent independent from market fluctuations. Mr Jens-Holger Schneider argued for clean nuclear energy, the 3+ generation of power plants. He considered this as a bridge energy source superior to gas. Mr Thomas Krüger called for the local people to be involved in the expansion of renewed energy, making certain that they immediately benefited from solar and wind power installations in their neighbourhood. CLOSING SESSION The Closing Session was chaired by BSPC President Johannes Schraps and incoming BSPC President Henrik Møller . Rapporteur report on Migration and Integration by Ms Carola Veit Ms Carola Veit said that migration and integration were among the great challenges of this time for all the members of the BSPC. The various crises around the world had already set off massive departures of civilians from their homes, now adding more with one of the greatest humanitarian crises in Europe’s history with the war in Ukraine. Eurostat had stated that there had been over 72,000 first-time asylum applicants in April 2023 in EU countries, an increase of 34 % to April 2022. She underlined that refugees were human beings with their own histories and fates. Solutions had to be found for housing, education, labour, healthcare, and childcare, requiring common European solutions. Yet a joint European policy had proven a challenge in itself. The EU had now stated that acceptance of refugees should be compulsory, yet the overall goal had shifted to reducing the number of refugees coming to Europe. Ms Veit opined this showed greater emotion involved in migration politics, reflecting the rise of far-right parties claiming that migrants were threatening security. Poland was planning a referendum on accepting refugees; Sweden was aiming to tighten the requirements for family joining resident migrants; Finland had announced crackdowns on migrants; Denmark was revising its citizenship rules. Moreover, Finland and the Baltic countries were tightening their border security to Russia and Belarus. An OECD report highlighted that integration and inclusion investments benefited migrants, their families, societies, and economies while failures to integrate were costly. With shrinking work forces, efforts to integrate migrants were essential. The only conclusion was that this topic had to be kept at the top of the agenda. Rapporteur report on Sea-Dumped Ammunitions by Ms Anna Kassautzki Ms Anna Kassautzki began by saying a time bomb was ticking on the ocean floor. She noted that the number of 400,000 tonnes of submerged conventional munitions was only an estimate. Much of it had not been found yet. Since WW II, the shell casings were rotting, exposing the contents to the waters. A research project near Kiel had learned that mussels were taking in TNT and derivates and that 25 % of cod near the dump sites were showing liver cancer. The slow water exchange of the Baltic Sea exacerbated the concentration and thus effect of the substances. Aside from the BSPC, the CBSS and other organisations were also working on this topic. In December 2022, an expert roundtable had gathered 40 leading experts in Kiel, producing recommendations like a joint fund. By now, technological progress had made locating munitions easier, e.g., using AI to identify sites. In combination with the planned German disposal platform, this could be a gamechanger. Finding and destroying the ammunition above the waterline would be the best solution without damaging the ecosystem. Ms Kassautzki appreciated the European Commissioner Sinkevičius endorsing this project and hoped for EU funds to join the German federal government’s 100 million euro budget. The EU was ready to coordinate efforts and help develop respective tools and technologies. This, Ms Kassautzki underlined, was huge progress over the past year. Yet, the joint work by all the stakeholders had to be intensified so she called on everyone to continue filling the knowledge gaps and share best practices. President Schraps thanked all the rapporteurs for their efforts over the last year, noting that their reports were available on the website in full. Administrative Matters BSPC President Johannes Schraps invited the conference to adopt the recommended changes to paragraph 11 in the BSPC’s Statutes and Rules of Procedure, after already optimising and strengthening the foundation of their cooperation at the 31 st Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference in Stockholm. The Standing Committee had unanimously approved the changes to paragraph 11 at its meeting on 27 August 2023. The conference unanimously adopted the amended changes to paragraph 11 of the Statutes and Rules of Procedure. BSPC President Johannes Schraps thanked all the delegations for their work on the resolution of the 32 nd Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference and the respective labour of the Drafting Committee. He believed this was an excellent document. The conference unanimously adopted the Resolution of the 32 nd Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference. BSPC President Johannes Schraps voiced his hope that the governments of the Baltic Sea region would implement the resolution and also that this would lead to a better region. Next, he moved on to establishing a new BSPC working group. Before that, he thanked the members of the just concluded Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity for their work, singling out the chairs, Mr Philipp da Cunha and Ms Cecilie Tenfjord-Toftby. The Baltic Assembly had introduced a concept for the new working group which had been discussed and refined in detail at various BSPC meetings. The Standing Committee had forwarded the concept to the conference for approval. With the adoption of the resolution, the BSPC Working Group on Energy Security, Self-Sustainability, Connectivity, and Resilience had been approved. As the chair, Mr Kaspars Briškens had been nominated. Mr Schraps asked for the conference’s approval. The conference unanimously appointed Mr Kaspars Briškens as chairman of the new BSPC Working Group on Energy Security, Self-Sustainability, Connectivity, and Resilience. Mr Kaspars Briškens accepted the appointment. BSPC President Johannes Schraps said it had been a huge privilege to represent the BSPC and its core values at various conferences. This had been a challenge – because of the times and the efforts these had demanded – but also a great honour. With that, he passed the traditional baton of the presidency of the BSPC over to Mr Henrik Møller of Denmark. Newly installed BSPC President Henrik Møller thanked the youth forum for their contributions in resilience. Democracy should never be taken for granted and was a continued struggle to keep it intact. He went on to say that he would take on the task of the presidency with humility and dedication. The BSPC had been established in 1991 as a forum for political dialogue. Russia’s war in Ukraine had been a reminder of dark times that had seemed far away. The nations of the Baltic Sea region had been divided during the Cold War, but the spark of collaboration and cooperation had lit a passion in the 1990s. The BSPC played a crucial role in bringing together parliamentarians, experts, and stakeholders, facilitating joint strategies for tackling common challenges. It stood as an example of the power of cooperation and unity. The path of the Baltic States to freedom showcased how collaborative efforts could overcome even the most difficult circumstances. Mr Møller sought to continue on this path. Through upholding the principles of dialogue, understanding, and joint action, they would keep on harnessing the collective strength of the Baltic Sea region and build a brighter future. The urgent need for energy diversification had accelerated and scaled up low-carbon energy technologies. The challenges and opportunities of the future had to be navigated to ensure a secure, sustainable, and resilient energy supply. As important was the resilience to climate change, requiring government and gubernatorial practices to integrate scientific knowledge with local expertise. In conclusion, safety and defence in the Baltic Sea region was of utmost importance in light of the changed situation over the past five years. Mr Møller was looking forward to a constructive and fruitful collaboration. The conference applauded the speech with standing ovations. Outgoing BSPC President and then BSPC Vice-President Johannes Schraps thanked everyone involved in the organisation of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum and the 32 nd Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference. He thanked expressively Katalin Zádor and the whole Bundestag-team and Secretary General Bodo Bahr for the ‘outstanding job’, as well as all who had contributed to the perfect conference proceedings. With his whole delegation, he had been very delighted to see all participants in Berlin, in the Plenary Hall of the German Bundestag. He also thanked all the attendees for their participation and their contributions which made the conference as successful as it was. With that, he declared the 32 nd Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference closed.

The representatives of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum presented their recommendations, followed by an informative panel discussion on Boosting Democratic Resilience and Promoting Digital Resilience. In the next session, the conference investigated Strengthening the Resilience of Maritime Ecosystems. Second session Introductory remarks followed by a panel discussion on the topic of „Boosting democratic resilience and promoting digital resilience“ Ms Hanna Katrín Friðriksson and Mr Wille Valve co-chaired this session. Ms Friðriksson said as an introduction that value-based democracy had been under threat in recent years, not least through the rise of digital technology. Presentation by Ms Silva Laure and Mr Shahin Khosravi, representing the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum Ms Silva Laure and Mr Shahin Khosravi explained that the youths had produced eight unanimous recommendations on four topics. On improving digital resilience, they recommended prohibition of personal mass profiling based on data as far as these profiles allowed targeted advertising for disinformation; the parliaments should promote digital literacy education for all age groups regarding data privacy and supporting innovations to tackle disinformation. On youth participation, they called for youth involvement in political decision-making and youth civic engagement through increased political literacy; more platforms for young people with decision-making power and legally guarantee youth councils to advise local and regional governments on policies relevant to young people. Regarding social division and polarisation, they recommended developing and implementing civic education programmes and civil society initiatives to raise awareness of the dangers of extremism to democracy, including recruiting strategies; encouraging cross-border exchange programmes for citizens of all ages and diverse backgrounds focused on bridging societal division and combating extremism. To sustain faith in democratic institutions, they called for a guarantee on inclusive governance by including social groups affected by structural inequality in the formation of policies and establishing mechanisms for participatory budgeting for more equitable resource distribution and community empowerment; encouraging workers to join unions by promoting awareness and strengthening the institutional framework of the workers’ unions. In conclusion, the representatives also recommended that the BSPC implement a follow-up and monitoring process to track the progress of the recommendations presented here at the German Bundestag. Ms Laure called on the BSPC to involve youth participation at all working-level meetings of the working group on all policy areas. Mr Khosravi insisted that youth involvement could not be tokenism or “youth washing”; they had to be understood as active agents of policy making beyond so-called youth issues. Speech by Mr Stefan Seidler , independent Member of the German Bundestag for the South-Schleswigian Voter’s Association, Member of the Committee on Internal Affairs and Community Mr Stefan Seidler favoured the Nordic and Baltic forward-looking approaches to digitalisation. He noted that his parliamentary mandate marked the first time in sixty years that the Danish minority was represented in the German Bundestag. Subtle changes marked the shifts in the digital political landscape; the first to be targeted – and thus to learn – were minorities, as also evidenced by the Uighur situation in China or the LGBTQI+ community in Europe. The current major threat in the digital realm was Russia, finding many people in the West willing to believe their disinformation. He did not see the solution in technical or legal measures but rather in education, through strengthening media literacy in schools. Again, he pointed to the Nordic countries as best practice examples. Speech by Mr Paul Nemitz , Principal Advisor of the European Commission Although he agreed that education and boosting the civil society were important, Mr Paul Nemitz underlined that common rules were necessary as a framework for the digital world. The social media platforms were run by huge companies against whose power single countries could not stand. Common rules for the European Union could tie these firms into the engagement for democracy, unlike the autocratic forces of Russia and China. The data protection law of the GDPR was crucial for instance in the curtailing of AI. As such, he appreciated the youth representatives’ first recommendation to prohibit mass profiles as these constituted comprehensive surveillance that could be used to influence or even blackmail individuals. The Digital Services Act (DSA) for instance forbade self-preference. It also obliged major platforms to ensure that they were not a breeding ground for illegal content but also such undermining democratic values, even if that was legal. Structural measures had to be established to that goal. Currently, audits were started to review these measures. This was important, Mr Nemitz underlined, as these networks were competing with the free press. All media in Europe now were inherently obliged to prevent anti-democratic or harassing content, as opposed to the previous notice-and-take-down procedure. The democratic state could not stand idly by while the free press and journalists were wiped out. Thus, a level playing field for journalism in this competition had to be ensured. Moreover, participation in democratic decisions on all levels had to be boosted. A democracy had to be able to defend itself against its enemies. Speech by Mr Otto Tabuns , Director of the Baltic Security Foundation Mr Otto Tabuns saw the Baltic Sea region as a key area in the EU, from the point of view of security but also as a gateway to the Arctic. He also highlighted democracy and freedom as aspects other countries were lacking, such as North Korea or Russia, which made the latter attack these. China, furthermore, sought technological inroads to bolster its power and influence. In the area of defence, he called for better integration on a multi-national level, including both defensive and offensive cyber capabilities. For the environment, a secure renewable energy supply was vital. Moreover, vital services such as finances and transport but also the internet had to be integrated and secured. Regarding societal security and education, he bemoaned the rapid changes accompanying the COVID pandemic and the war in Ukraine, arguing for vertical, multi-lateral, and cross-border cooperation. Several processes had to be pursued at the same time. Mr Tabuns also raised the threat of personal profiles gathered by China through various means, among them TikTok, for surveillance and control purposes. Ms Anna Kassautzki moderated the following panel debate. In the quest to make the internet safer, she raised the concern over the poor working conditions of content moderators in social media companies – the people who had to review the reported hate speech or otherwise disturbing content. Despite their traumatising job, they did not have recourse to psychological support. She started off the debate by pointing to creating spaces safe from disinformation campaigns. Mr Paul Nemitz saw a number of things that had to be in done in parallel to secure such spaces as the foundation of democracy. The Council for the European Public Space sought to bring together all TV news from all member states onto one platform with automatic translation; the goal was to provide comparatively safe sources of information which had previously been blocked by the language barrier. Considering the strict controls of public news in Hungary and Poland, this contributed to domestic plurality of information. In addition, fake news had to be refuted. He also saw the vigorous enforcing of the structural requirements of the DSA as vital. Ms Anna Kassautzki remarked that people were starting to distrust the media but blindly trust social media comments. As such, she asked how trust in researched news and media literacy could be strengthened. Mr Stefan Seidler agreed that cross-border pluralism was necessary. He favoured education on digital literacy here, again praising the Nordic countries. More money had to be invested. As for the content moderators, he believed that those trained to review contents in the public sphere could be hired for more money by the large companies. Ms Silva Lare interjected that young people had contributed a project on tackling disinformation to the CBSS Ministerial Meeting. Steps were taken by the youth for the youth. There did not have to be a state-directed solution. Mr Shahin Khosravi felt that trust was connected to a feeling of being included in society. As good as some strategies were, they rarely reached the local level. All democratic forces had to be united towards this goal. Furthermore, there had to be local-level programmes to include older people. Ms Anna Kassautzki concurred that a strong civil society was the backbone of a strong democracy where all could participate, even though they might be part of a minority or immigrants. She pointed to the example of Twitter/X under Elon Musk’s ownership relaxing control: The first ones to leave were the minority groups. Indeed, these private companies had to be held accountable, with the European level approaches. Mr Otto Tabuns considered the fundamental differences regarding freedom of speech between the United States – where it was absolute – and Europe – where it was regulated – but also China – where it was non-existent. Primarily, research skills and academic honesty had to be taught at all levels, including the most basic ones. Debate skills were equally lacking. He believed that these skills in young people would make Europe more competitive in an economic sense. Mr Paul Nemitz vehemently disagreed with the perception that Europe was less free in terms of speech than the USA. The reality was that regulation maintained the freedom of speech through the absence of harassment, allowing more people to join in the discussion – especially minorities. American discourse lacked exactly that regulatory aspect introduced in Europe as a result of war and fascism. The debate was opened to the plenary at this point. Ms Bryndís Haraldsdóttir underlined Iceland’s high esteem for the BSPC as a unique forum for like-minded, mutual understanding in the region, after the Russian attack. The human suffering in Ukraine could not be ignored. Iceland was extremely concerned about sexual violence perpetrated by Russian troops. Furthermore, human trafficking exploiting women and children had to be combated with all means, including the virtual space. Democratic values, human rights, and the rule of law had to be defended vigorously, for everyone, irrespective of who they were, their gender, or how they self-identified. Mr Staffan Eklöf noted that democracy was the sibling of listening and reflection. Rigidity and prejudice stood in the way of the ongoing process of democracy. Trust, furthermore, had to be earned. Accordingly, personal integrity was the biggest asset in fighting authoritarian regimes. He called on the attendees to listen, to discuss politely, to think critically, and to analyse one’s own thoughts. Mr Arturs Pīlācis , BSPYF, warned of changes in society that contradicted common values in the Baltic Sea region. This applied to, among others, censorship, human rights, freedoms. Good intentions did not ensure good measures, and it was necessary to listen to the people on the opposite political side to chart a good course. Ms Amani Mahdi Basita Al-Mehsen , BSPYF, noted how deeply the situation in the world was reflected in young people and how strong their passion for democratic and just policies was. She called for a continued resilience in the here and now, not just put off into the future, choosing to do not what was easy but what was right. Listening mattered, for silence was toxic. Mr Martin Johnsen , BSPYF, stressed the value of youth participation, envisioning institutions to bring youth voices into political decision-making and shaping the future they wanted to live in. A renaissance of youth democracy was needed in his view, as young people were disillusioned for not being included. Mr Johannes-Emmanuel Allas , BSPYF, agreed with youth organisations having to be included in all policy decisions. Regarding digital resilience, he referenced the question of creating a proprietary platform in, e.g., Europe or continuing to work with the giant companies headquartered in the US. Mr Kaspars Briškens himself had been a youth parliamentarian 25 years earlier when all the same topics had been discussed – with the exception of digital resilience. Youth participation had been demanded with the same kind of dynamism and enthusiasm. He emphasised three key areas for youth participation: One was youth unemployment, the other was housing availability, and the third was inclusive societies where everyone could prosper regardless of their background. Ms Hanna Westerén was cheered by the youth representatives call for union involvement, in light of the lack of engagement by young people in political parties or unions in Sweden. A resilient and sustainable future required the people to facilitate participation in such institutions. Mr Tom Matzen , BSPYF, interpreted resilience as giving the tools to do so to the people. Yet there had to be a stop sign to cease spreading hatred and a go sign to cooperate more strongly. Mr Johannes Schraps summarised the preceding statements as proof of how many aspects had to be kept in mind to promote digital resilience and to strengthen democracy. A balance had to be struck between curtailing hate speech but also protecting the freedom of expression. This was a difficult task which he likened to a ride on a razor blade. He applauded that so many representatives of the youth forum had found the courage to take the floor and speak in this plenary hall. Equally, he appreciated that they had not just spoken from their own perspective but had also called for digital education for everyone across the generations. Regarding the trust in public institutions, Mr Schraps believed that a new discourse had to be found on how to deal with mistakes. When adopting laws as a legislative body, he thought that some room for manoeuvre had to be kept. The administrative body had such space but were afraid of making mistakes. As such, these problems had to be solved jointly and without this fear. Prof Jānis Vucāns remembered that the topic of resilience had first surfaced in the BSPC in 2014, after the Russian occupation of Crimea. Aside from the obvious hate speech, he also saw other effects at work, such as the availability of Russian TV channels and their influence in several European countries. This was part of a hidden attempt to spread post-Soviet ideas, which was why these channels and Russian products had been banned in Latvia. Resilience needed stronger cooperation and better understanding of these issues across the countries. Third session Strengthening the resilience of maritime ecosystems The session was chaired by Mr Jorodd Asphjell and Ms Anna Kassautzki . V ideo message by Mr Virginijus Sinkevičius , EU Commissioner for Environment Mr Virginijus Sinkevičius considered the BSPC a unique parliamentary bridge between all the countries of the Baltic Sea region. An objective of both EU and BSPC was to make the Baltic Sea clean and safe. Despite many efforts, the fish stocks remained under pressure, threatening the livelihoods of many local communities. Eutrophication through excessive nitrogen loads had to be curbed urgently. The sea-dumped ammunition was another threat that had to be tackled, and he cherished the BSPC’s repeated push on this issue. Strong regional collaboration by all stakeholders had to be the solution. Speech by Ms Steffi Lemke , Federal Minister for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Nuclear Safety and Consumer Protection, Germany Ms Steffi Lemke pointed out that the work on environmental protection of the Baltic Sea had been encumbered by the ramifications of the Russian war of aggression. These were all the more visible in the Baltic Sea region, as evidenced by the halted cooperation in HELCOM. Yet the democratic nations were continuing the implementation of the HELCOM Action Plan. Beyond the Baltic Sea region, breakthrough developments in marine protection had been possible: Germany had called for a pause on deep-sea mining until relevant frameworks were established, based on the incalculable risks. This paradigm shift was important, she highlighted. By now, 21 nations had committed to such a precautionary pause. As relevant was the UN Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction treaty which had finally been agreed upon in March 2023, despite the difficult times. The goal was to have the treaty ratified prior to the UN Oceans Conference in Nice in 2025, requiring 60 countries to pass it. The Montreal biodiversity conference had called for 30 % of the seas to be turned into marine protected areas, which was only possible by covering areas beyond national jurisdiction. Moving on, she looked at the efforts to establish a legally binding treaty against plastic pollution. The second round of negotiations had taken place in Paris in April 2023. It was incumbent to reduce the amount of plastic in the sea, although a breakthrough had not yet been reached. As vital as recycling was in this issue, the current rate of plastic production meant it would not suffice as a solution. Instead, the production – especially of toxic and non-recyclable ones – had to be reduced. Ms Lemke spoke about the horrendous situation in the oceans, having reached unprecedented temperatures. This was also reflected by the increased hurricane season. Thus, it was all the more important for the Dubai COP to yield success in curbing temperatures. Otherwise, Ms Lemke put the raison d’être behind climate conferences in doubt. Given that any reduction in temperature would take a long time, she appealed to the parliamentarians to support the restoration law on the EU level. Nature was needed to support the amelioration efforts. Ms Lemke addressed the issue of sea-dumped ammunitions in the Baltic Sea which had been neglected far too long. She underlined the federal government’s pledge of 100 million euros to push forward the retrieval efforts. This should serve as a warning sign that in the future, munitions – or other items – were not simply dumped into the seas. At the latest in early 2024, the construction of a mobile marine disposal facility would begin, followed with pilot retrieval missions at the latest in 2025 in the German areas of the Baltic Sea. The plan was to continue this work in collaboration with other Baltic Sea nations. That, like so many marine protection goals, could only be achieved in joint efforts. All of these had to be pursued vigorously. Mr Philipp da Cunha noted that the BSPC had just completed its Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity, one of the organisation’s many efforts in that field. The group had investigated the situation in the Arctic on site in Tromsø, learning how much faster warming is happening there. Mr da Cunha wondered how the cooperation of the responsible ministers in the Baltic Sea region could be reinforced. He noted the working group’s in-depth examination of peatlands and respective emissions, asking how their importance could be underlined more strongly. Ms Steffi Lemke saw the collaboration between the European ministers on the environment as excellent, explicitly including Norway. In times like these, with so many challenges, it was important for parliamentarians to keep highlighting marine protection. The same applied to peatlands the draining of which had significantly contributed to increased CO 2 emissions. While this had created prosperity, it was now threatening to destroy it, so that the draining had to be reversed. In Germany, four billion euros had been provided through the programme Natural Climate Protection until 2025 for the renaturation of ecosystems. Using nature to combat climate change was a vital tool that she expected to play a major role at the COP in Dubai. Ms Anna Kassautzki underlined that the working group had discussed not only the state of the Baltic Sea but had also dealt intensively with peatlands. It had been a fruitful discussion across country and party borders. Mr Andreas Schoop of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum applauded the sea-dumped munitions problem finally being tackled. He wondered if the Baltic Future Conference could lead to a breakthrough and bringing all the countries together to solve the problem. Ms Steffi Lemke perceived a lot of attention surrounding that conference. She hoped for a powerful resolution, not just about ammunition but also concerning the climate crisis, global warming, and in particular the influx of nitrates and phosphates into the Baltic Sea. Whichever tools would be used, the influx had to be stopped. In that, she asked the parliamentarians to send a strong signal towards this goal so this would be in that resolution. Speech by Ms Emma Nohrén , Chair of the Committee on Environment and Agriculture; Member of the Swedish BSPC Delegation Ms Emma Nohrén spoke about how Sweden was dealing with complex environmental objectives. As a PhD student, she had been working with shallow soft sediment bottoms. These issues had led her to become a politician. Sweden had started its environmental objectives system in 1999, with the overall goal of solving the major environmental problems without increasing environmental and health problems outside Swedish borders. A council of scientists had been convened to provide suggestions on sharpening the approach to the government. Unfortunately, the advice had not fit with other political objectives, such as labour. 13 years earlier, a cross-party committee on environmental objectives had been established instead. This worked on complex issues outside every-day politics together with scientific experts to find solutions. Many reports had been produced, chief among them the 2016 report making Sweden the first country in the world to set a net-zero emissions target. In 2017, the first UN Oceans Conference had been held in Sweden. In the course of that, this committee had been charged with developing a marine strategy for the country. Ms Nohrén had been appointed chair, adding that members of all political parties were represented. It had been important to her to have experts on law, science, and everything in-between. The approach in Sweden was to have a 360° look around society, involving stakeholders, NGOs, municipalities. In this case, that also meant seafood chefs, small- and large-scale fishermen, local councils. If data was lacking in a specific area, the committee could commission reports. The mission statement was not to overcome any and all problems but to make sure they were acknowledged and addressed. This included the view that ocean and climate issues were intertwined. Their work ended with more than a hundred proposals, backed by all the parties in the Swedish parliament. These covered changes in responsibilities, various laws as well as minor alterations. Moreover, she had been able to take the Swedish proposals and raise them to the EU level. Afterwards, the committee had turned to the climate footprint of Sweden, again with the support of all parties. As the first country, they had come up with a proposal for long-time targets for Swedish emissions. This way of working had proven successful in Sweden, in particular on the complex topic of marine issues. Speech by Mr Christoph Humborg , Professor of Coastal Biogeochemistry and Scientific Director of Baltic Sea Centre, Stockholm University, Sweden Prof Christoph Humborg addressed coastal seas as key areas for climate change . Yet they had been mistreated for decades, with massive repercussions. The Baltic Sea was a poster child for this, being entirely surrounded by land and only connected to other waters through the Danish strait. Thus, the water residence time was about 30 years, retaining the pollutants longer than, e.g., the North Sea. From a scientific point of view, resilience was achieved by a higher biodiversity. It was the basis for successful fisheries, made the system more fit to cope with heatwaves, and it could serve as a carbon sink for climate mitigation. The average temperature across a hundred years had increased near the Finnish coast by at least 2 degrees, at 30 metres depth. Heatwaves drove up those figures, leading to marine fauna dying. A higher biodiversity, though, allowed faster recovery from such shocks. There were clear synergies between water quality, biodiversity, and climate change. 100 years ago, a typical ecosystem had a high biodiversity, numerous fish stocks, and key habitats like salt marshes and seagrasses binding carbon into the soil. Prof Humborg underlined that marine sediments were better carbon sinks than forest soils. In the present day, due to eutrophication, they had turned into carbon sources, much like previously mentioned peatlands. In Swedish coastal waters, methane emissions were on the order of 4 – 5 million tonnes of CO 2 equivalent. For the entire Baltic Sea, it was more than 10 million tonnes. Massive so-called dead zones were formed by algal blooms – caused through fertilizer influx into the sea – sinking to the sea floor. Yet there was hope, Prof Humborg underlined: The HELCOM Action Plan had contributed to lowering the nitrate and phosphate input, mainly through sewage treatment. This was unprecedented globally. The Baltic Sea region was one of only a few that had managed to reduce its nutrient inputs. Yet it was a long-term process: It had taken 50 years to ruin the Baltic Sea, cleaning it up would take another 50 years. Regarding fishery in the Baltic Sea, that was a disaster. For decades, more than 20 % of fish stocks were removed, threatening a crash of the population. The EU’s policy of squeezing as much fish as possible while just maintaining stocks was detrimental in a sea sensitive to such pressures. At the same time, scientific advice had often been too optimistic. Moreover, fishermen often fished a little more than advised. This had led to the cod population crashing. The situation for herring was not much better. Worse, he criticised that more than 90 % of all fish caught in the Baltic Sea was not for human consumption but fish meal or fish oil. His recommendations to achieve a resilient Baltic Sea were to first implement the Baltic Sea Action Plan, reducing the inputs into the ocean, and also implement the Green Deal as well as the Farm To Fork Strategy. A better water quality was the basis for a better biodiversity which in turn would switch the system from a carbon source to a carbon sink. Secondly, fishing should be done more carefully, eliminating big trawler and maximised approaches. That also created more jobs for local fishermen. Thirdly, and significantly, ocean sediments had to be returned to carbon sinks, removing the dead zones, by restoring biodiversity. Speech by Mr Ronald Lieske , Director of the Managing Authority and Joint Secretariat of Interreg Baltic Sea Region Mr Ronald Lieske coordinated a 25-years-old funding programme for the Baltic Sea region, on behalf of the local countries and the EU. The programme covered the eight EU Baltic Sea countries and the southern part of Norway, working with companies and organisations of at least three countries. His side also provided structural support to bring together cultures, different perspectives and expertise together to develop joint solutions. The four funding priorities were innovative societies, water-smart societies, and climate-neutral societies. The resilience of the marine ecosyste m was part of the water-smart societies. In addition, their fourth priority serviced technical support for the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region. The main target groups were institutions implementing solutions – such as the NGOs in the regions and cities. Knowledge was to be shared, solutions tested, and ideas transferred between the regions. His side was part of the EU Cohesion Policy. As such, they were part of the EU seven-year funding scheme, currently in the 2021 – 2027 period. 14 months after the start, two thirds of the funds of 250 million euros had already been allocated, for 85 projects of different scales with 880 project partners from all region countries. Looking at solutions for marine resilience, his side was working on e.g., improving wastewater treatment systems, promoting sustainable agricultural practices, combating invasive species, adapting coastal systems to the effects of climate change, efficient water use and recycling, developing early warning systems to reduce the risks from natural and man-made hazards. Local knowledge was incorporated into the planning and decision-making processes. One specific project was testing water treatment processes to help water utilities better remove organic micro pollutants from the wastewater, developing guidelines in cooperation with HELCOM. It would be rolled out from pilot projects to countries all around the Baltic Sea. Another project was about harmonising land and maritime planning of various involved authorities, such as integrating the needs of offshore wind energy and tourism. This was an example of their bottom-up approach, with cities stating their needs and receiving support from the level of HELCOM or even the EU. As for dumped munitions, a call had been put out to get the best corporations working on the issue. Several of Mr Lieske’s side’s projects in previous funding periods had already targeted the problem, such as DAEMON II. The funds allocated for this goal were only 5 million euros but had to be considered on top of the 100 million euros provided by the German federal government. Strengthening marine resilience was a long-term goal that could only be solved by collaboration from all nations. Mr Simon Påvals was concerned with sustainable fishing quotas, especially the trawling of breeding herring in the Gulf of Bothnia. He asked Ms Nohrén how to make sure to protect small-scale coastal fishing as well as how to move the matter more effectively up to the international stage. Ms Emma Nohrén replied that her Swedish committee had already been aware three years earlier when that project had been completed. Although work had been done, it was still necessary to move the trawling zone further from the shore, lower the quotas, and perhaps ban industrial trawling in general. Prof Christoph Humborg added that Sweden and Finland were collaborating on the EU level since fisheries were most closely associated with policies. He noted that trawling was rightfully forbidden in the Great Lakes region in the USA, which was comparable to the Baltic Sea. When quotas were negotiated, the Baltic Sea should be treated as a special case because it was so different from the North Sea and the open Atlantic. Mr Wille Valve pointed out that there had been great success in reducing nutrient inflows since the 1980s although it might be the next generation to see a healthy Baltic Sea. Yet much more had to be done, and he called on his colleagues to make the Baltic Sea great again. Ms Alicia Wach , BSPYF, noted that as an environmental scientist, she had just worked on a project with GEOMAR in Kiel on carbon capture methods. The IPCC considered them vital tools for climate neutrality. She noted that seaweed fields could take up 35 times more carbon than rainforests in the Amazon, yet they were under pressure from agriculture and rising water temperatures. They should be protected through legislative measures. Secondly, carbon capture and storage was about trapping industrial emissions before reaching the air; although a somewhat risky process, the carbon could be bound to the sediment below the Baltic Sea. She encouraged the parliamentarians to look further at both methods.

Facing the Sea-Change in Politics With contributions from high-level representatives and partner organisations, the 32 nd BSPC Conference reaffirmed the realisation of the deep changes wrought by the Russian war of aggression in Ukraine and the need for reinforced resilience by the democratic nations of the Baltic Sea region, on the levels of defence, energy self-sufficiency, economy as well as society and in the digital sphere. Strengthening the Resilience of the Democratic Baltic Sea Region. Opening session BSPC President and head of the German Bundestag delegation Johannes Schraps welcomed the 32 nd Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference to the Bundestag plenary hall. He called on the delegates to deepen Baltic Sea cooperation and to set a decisive course for a better future of the Baltic Sea region and beyond. Welcome Address by Ms Bärbel Bas, President of the German Bundestag President of the German Bundestag Bärbel Bas welcomed the delegates, pointing out that Berlin had once been a member of the Hanseatic League. She underlined the importance of the Baltic Sea region for her and the entire German Bundestag. In that respect, she thanked Mr Schraps for guiding the BSPC during an unusually tumultuous period. This was marked by the brutal attack of Russia on Ukraine which had led to a rupture within the BSPC as the Russian delegations left and the democratic countries jointly condemned the assault. Ms Bas highlighted her close cooperation with her Ukrainian counterpart, Mr Ruslan Stefanchuk, and her own visit to Kyiv. It was crucial to her that the support for Ukraine must not wane. The democratic nations had to – and would – stand by Ukraine. After Russia’s departure from the Baltic Sea institutions, it was important for the other countries to cooperate ever more closely, both within the BSPC and the CBSS. Other cooperation formats were thriving, such as the EU and NATO. The accession of Finland and soon Sweden was reinforcing the alliance and the deterrence. Ms Bas highlighted the importance of the BSPC as discussing not just across country borders but also across parliamentary groups. Parliamentarians were closer to the citizens’ needs and wants than governments. Furthermore, the Bundestag president saw the strength of the BSPC in bringing together regional and national parliaments as well as international organisations. This had made the BSPC a particularly valuable format of dialogue, for now more than thirty years. The topic of this conference, the democratic and digital resilience, was vital because the openness of democratic societies made them vulnerable to attacks from enemies of democracy. Propaganda, hatred, and misinformation was spreading rapidly via social media and Telegram channels. Democrats had to defend themselves, online and offline. In that, they needed a strict prosecution with all the means provided by democratic law; platform and channel operators had to be held accountable; it was necessary to learn from each other about the most important strategies. Especially the Baltic Sea region was frequently the target of hybrid attacks, yet she cited a media study showing that these countries were leading in media competency. The best source of resilience was the citizens themselves. Well-informed citizens were needed to defend against disinformation, along with strengthened political involvement. Therefore, she appreciated the inclusion of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum’s participants and their ideas in this conference. Bundestag-President Bas called the Baltic Sea region a key area in Europe in which some of the decisions in the most important policy fields were made, such as climate change and the protection of maritime ecosystems. It was crucial to defend the Baltic Sea region as a place of good neighbourliness. BSPC President Johannes Schraps reiterated on the democratic parliaments’ condemnation of the brutal depravities committed by Russian forces in Ukraine, trampling on the principles that had been cornerstones of peace and stability for many decades. The reactions and decisions in the democratic nations were illustrated by the term “Zeitenwende”, coined by German chancellor Olaf Scholz. Division and fragmentation had to be avoided, and unity had to be the signal to the world. The BSPC had done so by recently reforging the foundation of cooperation, reacting clearly and consistently to the Russian war of aggression. Despite fundamental differences in some issues, the BSPC had continued to find unanimous decisions. These times of several crises were a turning point for this generation, requiring fundamental rethinking in societies. As such, in the past year, the BSPC had dealt mainly with climate change and biodiversity, sea-dumped ammunition in the Baltic Sea, and the strengthening of youth participation. He highlighted the efforts to remove the ammunition, developing new technologies, and that this problem had to be tackled right away. On climate change, he stressed recent breakthroughs on the expansion of marine protected areas, the renaturation of peatlands. The BSPC had kept its word in carrying the voice of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum into its resolution and its calls to governments. Not least through cooperating with HELCOM and the CBSS, the BSPC had shown that it was present. It had realised what it had set out to do: that the parliamentary dimension of cooperation in the Baltic Sea region was and would remain a motor for further development, direction and setting an example far beyond. First session Addresses by Representatives of other Parliamentary Assemblies, International Guests and BSPC Observer Organisations Ms Carola Veit and Mr Himanshu Gulati chaired this part of the session dedicated to the partner organisations of the BSPC. Speech by Ms Manuela Schwesig, Vice President of the German Bundesrat, Prime Minister of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Prime Minister Manuela Schwesig underscored the work of the BSPC since 1991 for a free and democratic Baltic Sea region. She also stressed the importance of involving young people and promoting their enthusiasm for liberty and the unity of the Baltic Sea countries. That was part of the defence against the divisive poison of hate and racism seeking to spread in each of those countries. The constitution of her federal state enshrined Baltic Sea cooperation, which was why Mecklenburg-Vorpommern had cultural, economic, and social ties to the other countries of the region. This made the rupture through Putin’s Russia all the more threatening, reinforcing the need to support Ukraine without question. Like the BSPC, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern also severed its ties to the St Petersburg region. A result of this rupture had to be all the other countries in the democratic Baltic Sea region moving further together. In light of the topic of resilience, this meant the security cooperation between nations and the safety of the critical infrastructure. As such, Germany had committed to reinforcing the security of the Baltic countries, with soldiers from her federal state serving to protect Lithuania. Cooperation also had to be strengthened in using the huge potential of the Baltic Sea region for renewable energies. The region could be a pioneer for living environmentally friendly, generating but also exporting energy and in peace and harmony. Ms Schwesig further underscored the efforts by Germany and other CBSS nations to clear the sea-dumped ammunition from the Baltic Sea, not least with the technologies and companies from her federal state. Speech by Ms Joëlle Garriaud-Maylam, President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly Joëlle Garriaud-Maylam saw the Euro-Atlantic area at a crossroads, with the trans-Atlantic partners determined to defend the values of democracy, freedom, and the right of all nations to determine their destiny. The Vilnius meeting had established the NATO-Ukraine Council, along with the unambiguous statement that Ukraine’s rightful place was in NATO. The meeting had also yielded the most comprehensive defence plan since the Cold War. Security would be reinforced in the Baltic Sea and along the entire eastern flank. They could not afford complacency, though, as evidenced by the warning calls from the Baltic Sea region after Russia’s previous wars of aggression went unheeded. To that end, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly had proposed the establishment of a Centre for Democratic Resilience at NATO HQ as a resource in the face of threats to the very democracy. This could help to defend against Russia and China which were using all their tools to export their authoritarian model. Speech by Mr Asaf Hajief, Secretary-General of the PABSEC Secretary-General of the PABSEC Asaf Hajief regretted that neither the Ukrainian president nor vice-president of the organisation could join the conference because of the situation in their home country. He conveyed their best regards. The Black Sea was an important part of the world due to its geographical location as a bridge between Europe and Asia and its energy resources. Yet peace and stability were difficult to establish as there were seven conflicts among the thirteen countries in PABSEC. One of the results was the number of refugees which had reached 100 million worldwide. He called for a quick resolution in the framework of international law, with sovereignty and territorial integrity as the basis. The world was not huge but microscopic; it was their duty to bring peace, security, and prosperity to it. Speech by Mr Grzegorz Poznański, Director General CBSS Ambassador Grzegorz Poznański applauded the multi-level governance between different institutions by their organisations to implement the basic goals of the region’s people: a safe, secure, and prosperous region. He also cherished the youth engagement of the CBSS and the BSPC. Resilience would be the cornerstone of the upcoming Finnish presidency of the CBSS, a crucial topic for all of Europe, as reflected by the organisation’s long-standing efforts concerning climate change as well as educating the public about resilience. An online course for the entire region would be available in the future. In order to respond to the various crises, current and future ones, cooperation was necessary between institutions, states, within states and institutions. But that also required a well-educated, well-informed, and well-involved society. Mr Poznański also highlighted the BSPC resolution on sea-dumped ammunitions which had brought about concerted efforts by the CBSS, HELCOM, and the individual nations and regions. Speech by Mr Jens William Grav, Coordinator Baltic Sea NGO Network, Denmark Coordinator Baltic Sea NGO Network Jens William Grav explained that his network’s goal was to bring together and connect NGOs from various countries in the region. People-to-people contact and human rights issues had always been a focus in their cooperation. Until 2022, that had involved Russian NGOs, yet that was no longer possible. He likened the Ukraine of today to Yugoslavia of the 1990s and wished that one day, a rapprochement in the current crisis could also become possible. He regretted that his network had lost platforms in Germany and Finland, but he offered his remaining network to the BSPC for cooperation. He mentioned the Swedish platform’s work on education and the Polish counterpart’s on tourism issues. In Denmark, they were working on bringing the cultures and societies of other Baltic Sea region countries to the local populace’s attention, in coordination with the respective embassies. Peaceful and reliable neighbourliness and intense cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region on the basis of fundamental values BSPC President Johannes Schraps and Vice-President Staffan Eklöf co-chaired the second part of the first session. Video message by Ms Annalena Baerbock, Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs, Germany Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs Annalena Baerbock cited the frequently used phrase “Our unity is our life insurance” as one of the great lessons from the Russian war of aggression. That was why the nations had put their cooperation in the Baltic Sea region on a new level recently, to protect and better use it, in particular in terms of renewable energy. Reducing fossil dependency not only benefited climate but also increased the security of the people in the region. Removing the vast amounts of sea-dumped ammunition was a vital project, and she thanked the BSPC for repeatedly raising this issue. The BSPC was about doing things better, for the unity of the societies around the Baltic Sea. Video message by Ms Elina Valtonen, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Finland Minister for Foreign Affairs Elina Valtonen stated the security ramifications of the Russian war of aggression, leading to Finland joining NATO. Baltic Sea countries had to cooperate ever more closely, in formats such as the CBSS and the BSPC. Finland’s current presidency of the CBSS was headlined by Comprehensive Security, Crisis Preparedness, and Resilience. Comprehensive security reinforced the links between the authorities, the business community, organisations, and citizens. They would look into civil defence and interfacing the roles of various actors. Moreover, they would emphasise the work against human trafficking as well as solutions to underwater ammunitions. Youth would remain a visible key part. She was looking forward to continuing constructive cooperation. Video message by Mr Margus Tsahkna, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Estonia Minister for Foreign Affairs Margus Tsahkna saw this year’s conference’s topic of Strengthening the Resilience of the Baltic Sea Region as of the utmost importance given the present challenges. Reinforced cooperation was required. He praised Ukrainians’ resilience and their strong commitment to fundamental values. Ukraine had to be supported thoroughly, and Russia’s leaders had to be held accountable for the horrors committed in Ukraine. Strengthening the resilience in the Baltic Sea region also meant reinforcing social cohesion, bolstering economic and digital security, fortifying internal security, reinforcing national defence, and fostering efficient cooperation with reliable neighbours. Preparedness for a diverse range of crises was vital. For Estonia, energy independence was crucial, thus they supported cooperation on renewable energy such as wind farms. But digital resilience against conspiracy theories and disinformation was as crucial as defence against cyber threats. BSPC Vice President Staffan Eklöf yielded the floor to the speakers in the open debate segment of the first session. Ms Lene Westgaard-Halle underlined the dreams of prosperity, democracy, and peace shared by the attendees made them stronger. To her, Germany and especially Berlin were symbols of that: Berlin not only was a warning of what must not happen again, it was also a sign of hope as a united city. Freedom from tyranny was possible. However, like in the 1930s, the world was changing once again, in countries once called democracies. Polarisation sadly was working, especially through “internet warriors”, leading to events like Brexit or the January 6 insurrection in Washington. She called on her colleagues to not be naïve about the possibility of fascism returning. Therefore, the BSPC and its cooperation was more crucial than one might think. It was necessary to listen and to respect each other’s differences.

In preparation for the 32 nd Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference on 27-29 August 2023, the BSPC’s Rapporteur on Sea Dumped Munitions, MP Anna Kassautzki, has issued her report, which deals with dumped munitions and unexploded ordnance in the Baltic Sea. This report builds on the intensive activities of the BSPC and progress in international cooperation in this field from last year. The report provides a general overview of the current situation, parliamentary and governmental activities, and existing challenges in dealing with the legacy, presentsnew developments and findings in technological and scientific terms, and provides insight into the current state of the situation. Following the 28 th , 29 th , 30 th and 31 st BSPC resolutionsand referring to the planned calls for action in the 32 nd BSPC resolution, conclusions are drawn on the state of implementation. Finally, the Rapporteur elaborates on proposals on how the Baltic Sea countries can efficiently use the existing knowledge and technology to solve the problem of sea-dumped munitions and unexploded ordnance in the Baltic Sea with various links to additional materials. The report can be downloaded h ere and on the R apporteurs’s webpage.

In preparation for the 32 nd. Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference on 27-29 August 2023, the BSPC Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity (CCB) published its Final Report on its activities throughout the past three years. The Chairman will present the report at the 32 nd Annual Conference. It includes the deliberations and a compilation of the materials discussed by the Working Group. The report also offers detailed information on the expert presentations carried out by the Working Group. The content refers in many places with links to other materials already published on the website, particularly the detailed reports about the sessions and can be accessed here and at the Working Groups website . The report contains all political recommendations incorporated in the resolutions of the 30 th and 31 st Conference, statements of the Baltic Sea region governments about the implementation of these recommendations and 25 far-reaching and ambitious final calls for action on climate and biodiversity that have been incorporated in the 32 nd draft of the BSPC Resolution. These recommendations call on governments to increase efforts in implementing national climate targets, strengthen regional collaboration, encourage renewable energy development, and transition from fossil fuels to low-carbon energy systems. They also emphasise the need to urge the world’s three largest CO2 emitters to step up their efforts to achieve ambitious climate targets, incentivise renewable energy development, and address the risks associated with increasing dependence on rare metal suppliers. The WG also urges the implementation of coastal management plans to protect and restore coastal ecosystems, support research and innovation in climate change mitigation and adaptation technologies and promote cross-border cooperation on regional climate initiatives. The Working Group highlights halting and reversing biodiversity loss by 2030 while ensuring inclusive, socially, and environmentally sustainable economic growth and development. The Baltic Sea Action Plan and its associated action documents should be implemented quickly and strictly to achieve good ecological status by the decade’s end. Regional strategies should be developed to deal with transboundary emergencies caused by climate change and pollution. The report also provides examples of best practices in climate change and biodiversity from the Baltic States. They accentuate regional cooperation and support for clean environments, biodiversity protection, climate change mitigation, soils and cooperation on greenhouse gas inventory. The recommendations address the most recent international developments and agreements in these areas. The urgency of further, consistent, and comprehensive measures in these policy fields is emphasised. The report should be considered a strategic summary of the BSPC WG CCB’s work.

BSPC Observer on HELCOM, Ms Beate Schlupp, First Vice-President of the State Parliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, has published her 2022-2023 Report on HELCOM-related developments and activities. The present publication covers the main highlights of the cooperation between the BSPC and HELCOM and the core developments in HELCOM’s work from October 2021 to July 2023. It provides a summary of the presentations held by HELCOM representatives at the 31 st BSPC in Stockholm, in the meetings of the BSPC Standing Committee, the BSPC Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity and the BSPC Secretariat, as well as the communication between HELCOM and BSPC HELCOM Observer Beate Schlupp – with a particular focus on nutrient inputs, biodiversity and climate change as well as sea-dumped munitions. The report also details the results of the HELCOM ministerial meeting on 21 October 2021 in Lübeck and HELCOM’s activities at the current time of Russia’s unprovoked, unjustifiable, and illegal war of aggression against Ukraine. The report further includes information about the Latvian Helcom Chairmanship 2022-2024. It summarises several more notable past events, particularly the Baltic stakeholder conferences of the past two years. It informs about HELCOM’s global engagement and commitments and includes some prospects and outlooks, also in the cooperation between the BSPC and HELCOM. The Report can be downloaded here and on the Rapporteur’s webpage .

The BSPC’s Rapporteurs on Integrated Maritime Policy, MP Philipp da Cunha and MP Jörgen Pettersson have issued their comprehensive Report 2022 – 2023 on Developments in Integrated Maritime Policy. The report once again underlines the crucial importance of maritime issues and challenges in the BSPC’s work. It summarises – in addition to the oral report during the 31 st BSPC – the developments in the Integrated Maritime Policy since the 30 th BSPC. It informs about the Maritime Rapporteurs’ activities, important conferences, and events over the past two years. The Report focuses on energy and security issues and infrastructural and environmental aspects of maritime policy. It also presents legislative developments and overarching elements. The Report again addresses the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Maritime policy and the Maritime economy and refers to the effects of Russia’s brutal war of aggression against Ukraine. Significant attention is being directed towards several key sectors, namely cruise shipping, shipyards, supply chains and the twin green and digital transition. Emerging sectors, such as the Blue Bioeconomy, are also discussed. The report also addresses ocean governance, with the EU’s commitment to conserve and sustain marine biodiversity. The Report can be downloaded here and on the Rapporteur’s webpage .